Integrating out the Standard Higgs Field in the Path Integral

Integrating out the Standard Higgs Field
in the Path Integral

Stefan Dittmaier 1 ^ and Carsten Grosse-Knetter 1 ' 2

1 Universitat Bielefeld, Fakultat fiir Physik,
Postfach 10 01 31, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany

2 Universite de Montreal, Laboratoire de Physique Nucleaire,
CP 6128, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3J7, Canada

BI-TP 95/10

UdeM-GPP-TH-95-21

neFph/9hUh266
May 1995

Abstract

We integrate out the Higgs boson in the electroweak standard model at one loop
and construct a low-energy effective Lagrangian assuming that the Higgs mass is
much larger than the gauge-boson masses. Instead of applying diagrammatical tech-
niques, we integrate out the Higgs boson directly in the path integral, which turns
out to be much simpler. By using the background-field method and the Stueckelberg
formalism, we directly find a manifestly gauge-invariant result. The heavy-Higgs ef-
fects on fermionic couplings are derived, too. At one loop the logMn-terms of the
heavy-Higgs limit of the electroweak standard model coincide with the UV-divergent
terms in the gauged non-linear cr-model, but vertex functions differ in addition by
finite constant terms. Finally the leading Higgs effects to some physical processes
are calculated from the effective Lagrangian.

* E-Mail : dittmair @physik . uni-biclcfcld . dc

^Partially supported by the Bundesministerium fiir Bildvmg und Forschung, Bonn, Germany.

1 Introduction

In a previous article jl] we have developed a method to eliminate non-decoupling heavy
particles from a theory and to construct a one-loop effective Lagrangian which parametrizes
the low-energy effects of these heavy particles. We have applied functional methods,
i.e. instead of calculating the effects of the the heavy fields diagrammatically, we have
integrated them out directly in the path intgral. The contributions of the generated
functional determinant to the effective Lagrangian have been expanded in inverse powers
of the heavy mass. In Ref. this method has been explained in detail by considering
a simple toy model, viz. by integrating out the heavy Higgs boson in an SU(2) gauged
linear a-model without fermions.

In the present article we apply this method to a phenomenologically interesting ex-
ample: we consider the SU(2) W x U(l)y electroweak standard model (SM) and assume
that the Higgs boson has a large mass in comparison to the gauge-boson and fermion
masses and the external momenta of the scattering processes under consideration. We
integrate out the Higgs boson and determine its non-decoupling effects, i.e. we calculate
the 0(Mjj)-terms (which includes the logMn-terms) of the corresponding low-energy ef-
fective Lagrangian, including the effective terms with fermion fields. This way we formally
construct the limit Mr — > oo of the SM at one loop, which is a good approximation to
the physically interesting case of a finite but heavy Higgs mass close to the unitarity limit
of M H ~ 1 TeV. The leading one-loop Higgs contributions to scattering processes and
physical parameters can then easily be derived from the effective Lagrangian. This will
be discussed by considering some examples.

Our method to integrate out heavy fields in the path integral has been discussed in
detail in Ref. IJ. Therefore, we will present all those parts of our calculation only very
briefly which concern this method in general or which can be done in analogy to the SU(2)
model without fermions considered in Ref. . Different methods to construct low-energy
effective Lagrangians by integrating out heavy fields have been proposed in [§, ||, |, [| .

The Higgs boson has recently been integrated out in the SM without fermions by di-
agrammatic methods in Ref. |J. The result of our functional calculation agrees with the
one given there. Comparing our functional calculation with the diagrammatic one, we find
that the functional method simplifies the calculation very much. While in a diagrammatic
calculation one has to calculate the Higgs-dependent contributions to various Green func-
tions (i.e. very many Feynman graphs) and then determine the coupling constants of the
effective Lagrangian by comparing coefficients ("matching"), in a functional calculation
the effective Lagrangian is generated directly. For instance, there are 14 effective bosonic
interaction terms which are expected to be generated by naive power counting. In fact
only 7 of these terms are generated, but the others (viz. the custodial SU(2) w -violating
dimension-4 terms) are not. In a diagrammatic calculation one has first to consider all
these terms when comparing the coefficients, and then it turns out that they vanish. How-
ever, in a functional calculation it is obvious that they are suppressed by at least a factor
M^/M£. The use of the background-field method 0, §, g 0, [IT] and the Stueckelberg
Formalism [12, |13, 14), Ij| automatically ensures the gauge invariance of the generated
effective terms, while in the conventional formalism there are some subleties concerning

gauge invariance of the matching conditions [16

1

In addition to the treatment of the bosonic sector of the SM, we also determine the
effects of a heavy Higgs boson on fermionic interactions, which have not been calculated
before. All effective fermionic interactions are proportional to mf/M^ and thus suppressed
for all fermions except for the top quark.

This article is organized as follows: In Sect. we describe the background-field method
and the Stueckelberg formalism for the bosonic part of the electroweak standard model
and determine the one-loop part of the Lagrangian. In Sect. |3| we diagonalize the Higgs
part of this Lagrangian. In Sect. [|we integrate out the quantum Higgs field and construct
the effective Lagrangian, which is written in a manifestly gauge-invariant standard form
in Sect. ||. In Sect. |] we carry out the renormalization of the Higgs sector. In Sect. [7]
the background Higgs field is eliminated, which yields the final effective Lagrangian. In
Sect. || we integrate out the Higgs boson in the fermionic part of the SM and calculate
the fermionic terms of the effective Lagrangian. Section || contains the discussion of the
result. In Sect. [K] we derive the log Mil-contributions to some physical processes directly
from our effective Lagrangian. Section [TT] contains our conclusions. In App. [A] the explicit
form of the Feynman integrals occurring in the calculations are given. In App. [B] we prove
an identity needed for our calculation.

2 The background-field method and the Stueckelberg
formalism

2.1 The standard-model Lagrangian

In this and the subsequent sections we first consider only the bosonic sector of the
SU(2)w x U(1)y electroweak SM. The fermions will be included in Sect. [|. The bosonic
part of the SM is specified by the Lagrangian

C = -Ui{W^Wn-\B„B^

+ l - tr {(D^(D^)} + i/i 2 tr {$t$} - (tr {$t$}) 2 . (2.1)

The field-strength tensors W^ u and B^ u read

B V» = QH B v _ Q» B H } (2.2)

where = W/Vi/2 and _B M represent the corresponding gauge fields. We note that we
use the convenient matrix notation for the SU(2)w representations throughout, with 7$
denoting the Pauli matrices. The covariant derivative D 11 ^ of the scalar Higgs doublet $
is given by

D»® = d»® -ig 2 W»<$> -ig x <&B^. (2.3)
Usually, the field $ is linearly represented by

$=-L(( u + #)l + 2^), (2.4)

2

where H is the (physical) Higgs field and <p = fiTi/2 the (unphysical) Goldstone field.
The non-vanishing vacuum expectation value is quantified by

(2.5)

For our purpose it is much more appropriate to use the following non-linear representation

$ = -j=(v + H)U W ith U = esxp (2i^j , (2.6)

where H is an SU(2)\y singlet, and the Goldstone fields ipi form the unitary matrix U. In
both representations the charge eigenstates of <p are given by

= -j= {<P2 ± m) , X = -<Pa- (2.7)

The different representations ( |2.4j ) and ( |2.6| ) are physically equivalent |I3] , ITS], i.e. both
yield the same S-matrix. Inserting ( [2.6| ) into the Lagrangian (|2.1|) , one obtains

C = ~ tr {W^W""} - + J(« + # ) 2 tr {(/^(ZW)}

+ )(«W) + \p?{v + Hf - 1a(« + if) 4 . (2.8)

In this form the advantage of the non-linear representation of $ is apparent. Owing to the
unitarity of U the unphysical Goldstone field (p only enters the kinetic term of the scalar
fields, but drops out in the cubic and quartic scalar self interactions.

Our conventions and notation for the parameters and fields follow the ones of

Refs. flO|, p], [L7J . Moreover, substituting g 2 — > g, g x — > 0, — > reproduces the re-
sults of Ref. [Q] for the pure SU(2) theory.

Finally, we consider the case of a very heavy Higgs boson, i.e. the limit Mh ~^ oo.
At tree level, the Lagrangian ( |2.8| ) reduces to the one of the gauged non-linear a-model
(GNLSM) |18|, 19| , which follows from ( |2.8| ) simply by disregarding the field H. Beyond

tree level the situation is much more complicated, as loop corrections associated with
virtual Higgs-boson exchange lead to additional (effective) interactions. Our aim is to
integrate out the heavy Higgs field at one loop and to construct the corresponding one-
loop effective Lagrangian. However, the Lagrangian ( |2.8j ) contains the field H up to quartic
power so that Gaussian integration is not directly applicable in the path integral. At one
loop this problem is circumvented by the background- field method (BFM).

2.2 The background-field method

The BFM 0, ^| was applied to the SM with linearly realized Higgs sector in
Refs. H [lC], [llj. For a pure SU(2) gauge theory we generalized the BFM to the non-

linear representation of the scalar sector in Ref. 0]. The same procedure also applies to
the SU(2) W x U(l)y SM. Accordingly, we split the fields into background and quantum
fields as follows:

-> + W, -> B^ + B^, H -> H + H, U -> UU, (2.9)

3

where the hats mark background fields. In opposite to the gauge and Higgs fields the
matrix U (|2.6| ), which contains the Goldstone field ip, is split multiplicatively. Recall that
only the quantum fields are quantized, i.e. they represent variables of integration in the
path integral. The background fields act as sources for the generation of vertex functions
in the effective action. The background fields correspond to tree lines and the quantum
fields to lines in loops. Thus, at one loop only the part of the Lagrangian quadratic in the
quantum fields is relevant, and therefore Gaussian integration is applicable. Furthermore,
this means that for the construction of vertex functions only the gauge of the quantum
fields has to be fixed. Choosing the gauge-fixing term for the quantum fields such that
gauge invariance with respect to the background fields is retained, the effective action
is "background-gauge-invariant", too. For the linearly realized Higgs sector (|2.4j ) an ap-
propriate gauge- fixing term was given in Refs. || [10], |TTJ , for the non-linear case ( |2.6|) we
use

£gf = ~ tr | (d^W, + l -i w g 2 vU V U^ - ^- (d»B, + ^1^3) ' (2.10)

with

D^X = d»X-tg 2 [W^X], (2.11)

which is the natural extension of the choice made in Ref. |l| for the SU(2) model. In
the following we set £ = = £,b in order to avoid mixing between the neutral gauge
fields A, Z at tree level. It is straightforward to check that Lagrangian ( |2.8|) with £ g f of
( |2.1U| ) leads to an effective action which is invariant under the following background gauge
transformation:

W» S \W» + j-dA S\ B" -> B» + d"0Y, H^H, U^SUSy (2.12)
with

S = exp (ig 2 0) , S Y = exp ^ Y |j , (2.13)

associated with the following substitution of the quantum fields in the path integral:

W^SWS*, B^B^ H -> H, U^S Y US Y . (2.14)

6 = OiTi/2 and 9y denote the group parameters of the SU(2)w and U(1)y, respectively.

The Faddeev-Popov Lagrangian £ g h os t, which corresponds to the gauge- fixing term
( p,10| ), is constructed as usual. In particular, £ g h os t neither involves the quantum nor the
background Higgs field.

2.3 The Stueckelberg formalism

The gauge of the background fields has not been specified so far and can be chosen inde-
pendently from the one of the quantum fields. It is most convenient to choose the unitary
gauge (U-gauge) for the background fields, where all background Goldstone fields disap-
pear. To this end, we use the Stueckelberg formalism [E| [13|, [14], [T5|], which has been
generalized to the BFM in Refs. [ffl, |J. We apply the Stueckelberg transformation

92

B 1

B 1

B'

B>

;2.i5)

4

which transforms the W field-strength and covariant derivative as

D^UU ^UD^U, (W^ + W» v ) -> U{W» V + W^ V )U ] . (2.16)

The effect of this transformation on the Lagrangian is to map the matrix U to the unit
matrix (U — ► 1), but leaving everything else unaffected. The fact that no background
Goldstone fields are present in intermediate steps of the heavy-Higgs expansion simplifies
our calculation drastically. Inverting the Stueckelberg transformation ( 2.15|) at the end,
we recover the result for an arbitrary background gauge.

3 Diagonalizing the Higgs part of the one-loop La-
grangian

As pointed out above, at one loop only those terms of the Lagrangian are relevant which
are bilinear in the quantum fields. In the background U-gauge the full one-loop Lagrangian
reads

C 1 - 100 * = tr jw^ {gT% + ^D^D U W + 2ig 2 W^ wjj

+ ~B„ (g^d 2 + ^£d»dA B u + -^\{v + Hf tr {C^}

- tr ^ Q- 2 t),{v + HfD» + \i 9 y + gi±(v + H)%C^ <p} - ifr?A>S

- \H {f - ^ + \\{v + Hf - \gl tr H

- 2g 2 ~(v + H)Htx {C^ip} - 2i 9l g 2 \v + H)H%r [pW^} &
+ g\{v + H)H tr {<0^} - g 2 -{2v + H)HXx {C^cp}

- 2%g\v tr {W^ip} + igig 2 -(v + Hf tr {r 3 W»tp} + tr {t 3 W^}

+ £ghost- (3-1)

The auxiliary background field occurring in ( |3.1|) is defined via

C" = W» + 9 -±B^ = \ (w? Tl + W?t 2 + —Z"t 3 ) (3.2)
g 2 2 2 \ c w /

and the corresponding quantum field analogously.

Since the ghost Lagrangian £ g h os t is bilinear in the Faddeev-Popov ghost fields, which
do not have a background part, the one-loop part of £ g h os t in ( |3.1D contains no other
quantum fields than ghosts and remains unaffected by all following manipulations.

Fortunately, not all terms of £ 1-1oo p in ( |3.1| ) are relevant for the construction of the
effective Lagrangian describing the non-decoupling effects. In the following we only con-
sider contributions of O(Mjj), i.e. we neglect all terms which yield no effects in the limit

5

Mh — > oo. Our complete method for the l/Mn-expansion was described in detail in
Ref. flU for the SU(2) case. Thus, here we shorten the presentation to the most important
steps and omit more technical details. We write the one-loop Lagrangian in the symbolic
form

C 1 -^ = -~HA H H + H tr {X» W W,} + Htr {X Hv cp}

+ tt{W^Wu} + ^tr{A ll ^A v }+tt{A lt X^Wu}

- tr {if A v <p} + tr {W, ^} + tr {A, X% <p} + £ ghost (3.3)

with the modified quantum SU(2)w field

= \ (Wfn + W£r 2 + Z»t 3 ) (3.4)

and the quantum photon field A 1 . Obviously, there is no AH-term in ( |3.1|) .

Applying Gaussian integration over H in the path integral directly to C 1 - 10 ^ of ( |3.3|) ,
the terms linear in the quantum Higgs field if would yield (problematic) terms with inverse
operators acting on quantum fields. However, the terms linear in if can be removed by
appropriate shifts of the quantum fields [I], 0, [5[]. Substituting successively [|TJ

<P <P + ~K l Xl H + - A^X^ W u ,
2 2

1 £ —lflU _

V - ^-^A-^W, (3.5)

with

A—

w

XjlW,n

completely eliminates the HW- and Hip-terms without changing the W^-mixing. The
bilinear if -operator transforms into

A H - A H = A H - - tr {X^A-^I J + - tr [x^A^ X^j . (3.7)

The meaning of the hats over the inverse operators will be explained below. In contrast
to the SU(2) case, the transformations ( |3.5| ) produce mixing terms between the quantum
Higgs field if and the photon field A. Analogously to (|3.5| ), these AH-terms can also
be removed by suitable (but more involved) shifts without affecting the if -independent
contributions. Only A H is modified again. However, these additional terms in A H only
yield 0(M£ 2 )-contributions in the subsequent 1/MH-expansion, and thus are not explic-
itly discussed here. This can easily be seen as follows: In Ref. |1| it has been shown that

/\f _|_ _xt. A~ 1 X!^

W 4 wip ■ <p Wfi

X H w,n + -X^A^X^^ (3.6)

6

the Yang-Mills couplings and the vector- Goldstone term yield no 0(M^)-contributions
when integrating out the Higgs field and can thus be neglected. However, the quantum
photon field A only couples to the other quantum fields through the Yang-Mills and the
vector-Goldstone term. Thus, at O(M^) this field may be dropped in (|3.3|) from the begin-
ning. At the diagrammatical level this means that there are no (9(Mjj)-contributions from
loops with both photon and Higgs fields, which is in accordance with the diagrammatical
calculation in Ref. Taking only into account effects of O(M^), A H reduces to

A H - ~A H = A, - ~ tr {X^A-'XI} + i tr {X hW /A^ X^} (3.8)

as in Ref. In (375) we already made use of the fact that only the lowest-order part

A^ of A^ contributes in O(M^), in analogy to the situation in the SU(2) case.

We still have to supply the meaning of the hat over the inverse operators in the previous
formulas. As in Ref. A -1 denotes the restriction of the hermitian, 2 x 2-matrix- valued
inverse operator A -1 to the subspace spanned by the Pauli matrices Tj. Only with this

restriction the shifts (3J3) make sense, because it ensures that the rhs of these shifts are
linear combinations of the Pauli matrices |J. In terms of a perturbative expansion A -1 is
given by

A- 1 = A^p £ (— nAg 1 p) n

n=0

= A X P - A^PUA^P + A^PnA^PnA^P - (3.9)

where A denotes the lowest-order contribution (which is proportional to the unit matrix)
to the full operator A = A + n. The operator P is the projector onto the subspace
spanned by the Tj. More generally, we define

PjX = -Tj tr {TjX} (no summation over i),

P = £p, (3.10)

i=i

where the Pj project on the single Pauli matrices Tj, respectively.

For the operators A, X of the one-loop Lagrangian (|3.3|) we just give the terms which

are relevant for A H in (|3.8Q , namely

A v = D»(l + ^ D„ + g 2 C^(l + ^) + £M W
A H = d 2 + + \m 2 J- (2 + f ) - ,
^ = ^(1 + 1)^(1 + ^),

X Hv = 2g 2 (l + - ) (-6^ + tg 1 B^T 3 W, l ) . (3.11)

7

After all these manipulations the resulting one-loop Lagrangian is obtained from

upon disregarding X 1 ^— , X Hip and replacing A H by A H of (|3.8|), where terms yielding only
(9(MH 2 )-contributions are neglected.

4 Integrating out the quantum Higgs field and 1 / Mn-
expansion

The next step is to perform the path integral over the quantum field H by Gaussian
integration. For a detailed discussen of this procedure, we again refer to Ref. M. The
term quadratic in H yields a functional determinant which can be expressed in terms of
an effective Lagrangian |], £|

Ccs= U log {^ h{x ' dx + w) ) ■ (4 - 1}

Ah(x, d x + ip) can be expanded in terms of derivatives^],

_ oo

A H (x,d x + ip) =

n=0 U -

A H (x,ip)

dm ■ ■ ■ d »n

= -p 2 + M^ + U(x,p,d x ), (4.2)
leading to the following expansion of the logarithm

~ 00 1 / 17

log A H (x, d x + ip) = log(-p 2 + Ml) - Y - ~ ttj ) • (4.3)

The first log-term of ( [4.3| ) yields a constant contribution to the effective Lagrangian, which
is irrelevant in this context and will be dropped in the following. The powers of II in ( f4.3|)
contain propagator terms (p 2 — M 2 )~ m with M 2 = Mfy, Mj, £M|y or £M| originating from
the derivative expansion of the inverse propagators A^ 1 , A^^ u . Hence, upon inserting
expansion ( |4.3| ) into ( |L1[ ), the effective Lagrangian can be expressed in terms of one- loop
vacuum integrals of the type

wo = ^ / ^ v-^v^m?)- M - = Mw - Mz - (44)

In (|4.4j ) it is already indicated that we use dimensional regularization throughout with
D denoting the number of space-time dimensions, and fi representing the reference mass
scale, g^...^ is the totally symmetric tensor of rank 2k built of the metric tensor g^ u .
For D -> 4 the integrals I l klm (0 are <D(M£) with

n = 4 + 2(fc-Z-m) (4.5)

1 The first line of (4.2) cannot be taken literally for the derivative expansion. The partial derivatives do

not commute with the background fields in An(x,ip), and thus one also has to take care of the position
of the derivative operators, which can easily be achieved in the actual calculation.

8

if n > 0, and 0(M^ 2 ) or less if n < 0. The explicit expressions for the integrals relevant for
£ e fj are listed in App. |A]. In particular, the C(Mjj)-parts of all logarithmically divergent
integrals are independent of £ and M 2 . Consequently, the index i and the argument £
will be dropped for these in the following. In addition to the Mn-dependence of the
integrals, there is an explicit Ma-dependence in the generated effective Lagrangian due to
the Higgs self interactions and an implicit Ma-dependence stemming from the occurrence
of the background Higgs field H which will later be eliminated by a propagator expansion
yielding H = 0{M^ 2 ). Thus, as in Ref. we introduce an auxiliary power-counting
parameter (, which counts the powers of p M , H and M H according to

(4.6)

In order to obtain the effective Lagrangian at O(M^), we only have to consider contribu-
tions up to C(C~ 4 ) in the expansion of log A# (x, d x +ip) (i.e. up to 0((~ 2 ) in Ah(x, d x +ip))
and can neglect higher negative powers of (.

As a result of this power counting it turns out that most of the contributions of the
projection operator P 3 ( p,10[ ) in A^ and A v flS.lip can be neglected at 0(Mp}). In order

to illustrate this, we consider the operator A _1 (x, d x +ip), which occurs in ( [4.1| ) with
Using (|3.10| ) we write

i + ^pAp = M 2 P i .

with

M

w-

M, = M*

(4.7)

and find with (|3

A 1 (x,d x +ip)

1

P 2 - iMf

1

(p 2 - £M 2 )(p 2 - £M,

■Pi

+

2H

(p 2 - ZM 2 )(p* - ZM 2 )(p* - £M 2 )

p 2 + 2vp^ + D 2 + gl&C^
APiip^P^D^Pu

(4.8)

The operator (p 2 - ^M 2 )- 1 ^ occurring several times in this expression can be written as

■p

P'-ZM 2 ,

■p-i

M 2 ! - M|

{p 2 - ^M 2 ,)^ - t,M 2

-Pr.

(4.9)

The second term in ( |4.9J) is 0(( 4 ) and can thus be neglected in the second and the third
term of (|4.8|), because A" 1 (a;, d x + ip) is only needed at 0{Q~ A ).

Expanding log A#(x, d x + ip) and integrating over p in analogy to Ref. |T]|, we find the
effective Lagrangian according to flO|), ( |4.2| ) and ([4.3| ):

C

cff

16tt 2

'010

4M W 16M^ 4 y2 I ^ I

9

-J 011 glMftTfaPiC"}
+ P in (l) g 2 tr {dpPidi*}

+ I mi g 2 2 [tr {(^C* 4 ) 2 } + 2ig l B fX tr {r 3 W^d v C v )}

+ gfB„B u tT{T 3 W^PW v r 3 }
+ I ll2 g 2 2 [-4tr{(d fi C>*)(b v C»)}+ tr{C,D 2 C»}

+ g 2 2 tr {d^C v C v } - 4i^4 tr {r 3 W^PD v C v }
- I 213 Ag 2 2 [tr {C M L>PL>(%} + tr {c ii D v PD"C v } + tr {c^D^P^C"*}'

+ ^020

+ /121

w

3/1 #2

+ -^2225 , 2

+ ^(r 2 ),

2M W l J 2 V I M J
tr{(7^}) 2 + 2(tr{C' M a})'

(4.10)

where we have used the notation (|4.4j ) for the (vacuum) one-loop integrals.

The origin of the various terms in (|4. 10|) is the following: The first line is the contribu-
tion of A H in (|3j|), the second stems from of X^^A^^X^-^ v , the third gets contribu-
tions from X Htp K~ x X^ Bv and X H ^ ^A^^ X^— v together, and the remaining terms come
from X^A-'X^.

Introducing standard traces and inverting the
Stueckelberg transformation

The effective Lagrangian Q4.10D has to be written in a more convenient form. Since we
want to invert the Stueckelberg transformation (|2.15 ) in order to obtain C e g in an arbitrary
background gauge, it is useful to introduce appropriate gauge-invariant standard traces.
Such traces have for instance been introduced in Ref. |19[ 2 . Since we presently work in the
U-gauge for the background fields, we express these terms both in their gauge-invariant
form (lhs of the arrow) and in the U-gauge (rhs of the arrow):

C

( tr

A = i<? 2 2 B^tr{fW""'}

U— gauge

U-gauge

-g 2 2 M^(ti{r 3 C,})\

2 In Ref. JT| the couplings constants ai are part of the effective terms £j while here they are not. Apart
from this, our terms are identical with those used in Ref. ]19|. The £[ defined there corresponds to our
Cq, and the traces in C§, . . . , £10, £12 and £13 of Ref. pS] do not occur in our calculation and thus are
not listed here.

10

£ 2

u
£5
£11

(trj^K}) 2

(tr{v;^}) 2

U -gauge
U— gauge
U -gau ge
U— gauge
U-gauge

-\iglBr,\x{r z [6>>,&
-ig 3 2 tr{W^[C^C v }},

gi{%r{C^})\
-gitvUb^C,)

(5.1)

with by/ defined in ( 2.11j) . Following Ref. we introduce the shorthand notation

V» = (£)"&) U\ f = Ut z U\ (5.2)

First, we consider the terms in (|4.10|) which contain derivatives or covariant derivatives
Q2.3|). These terms are proportional to loii> h\2 or J 2 i 3 . We express the derivatives in
terms of field-strength tensors fl2.2|) and vector-covariant derivatives (|2.11| ). These
terms become

£

off

£

eff

£

eff

deriv

Ion
deriv

hl2

deriv

^213

167T 2
1

-^011 £ll>

16n'

12

Iglt^W^W^} --g\B, v B

— £1 — £1 ~t~ — £1, — — £5 ~\~ 5jCii

92 2g 2 2 2

16tt 2

'213

2g 2 2 tv{w tlu W^}+g 2 1 B lxv B^

+ ^—£ x + 4^£ 2 - 4£ 3 - 4£ 4 + 4£ 5 - 12£n

92 92

. (5.3)

Next, we consider the terms proportional to Jon and J{ 11 (1) which contain the operators
Pi ( |3.10|) with different coefficients for i — 1, 2 and z = 3. These can easily be evaluated
by using

M 2 %x{C ll P i C^ = M^tr {C^} + \%Ml (tr{r 3 (%}

^ $2

and a corresponding identity for tr {C^PjC'' 1 }. We find:

(5.4)

£

£ C fT

Pi

efT

P.

Ion

1Q-K 2

1

'Oil

2^

ATi(l) ^ 2 tr {(%(>} - (lf u (l) - ~r

(5.5)

Finally, we reintroduce the background Goldstone fields by inverting the Stueckel-
berg transformation (|2.15 ), i.e. we transform the background fields and B^ as

#2

(5.6)

11

The transformations of the fields, field-strength tensors and derivatives in the standard
traces (|5.1| ) under the Stueckelberg transformation ( |5.6|) are given by

& ^ D^C, - -E7+ (D&V) U,

92 92

B

(5.7)

Consequently, the traces ( |5.1|) take their gauge-invariant form (lhs of the arrow in ( |5.1|) ).
Collecting all terms, we find

1 f

-eflf

167T 2

~ 2

(

w

—-'oio

16M

w

+ #2 | o . ,r J 020 —

8M

w

2M

2 / 12 i)i/tr{v^}

9M h r ^1

— JQ20 I

vv

+ ( ~/ 010 + M^/on - 1^(1) J tr {v^}

^/ii2 + 2/ 2 i 3 )tr{W MI/ ^} + ^( - jln2+ fo,< )/?„„/?""

^272^ + ^f lUl) - ItAl)

w

#1

+ — -/ll2 + 4/ 2 13 A + — - ^112 + 4/ 2 13 £
#2 V / 5-2 V

■ ( - l/ 2 ,:;-h ■2/> 22 )£ 4 + (t^ J 020

-/ll2 — 4/213 )^3

-/

121

4/213 + /222 ^5

+ - /on + 5/ U2 - 12/213 )C

'11

+ 0(C"

(5i

This Lagrangian is manifestly invariant under the gauge transformations of the background
fields ( ^.12 ), under which the quantities occurring in Q5.8| ) with ( |5.lD transform covariantly
according to

^ SW^S^ W v —> B^ v

_^ sv^sK

(5.9)

The gauge for the background fields can now be fixed arbitrarily.

6 Renormalization

In the previous sections we have dealt with bare parameters and bare fields only. In the fol-
lowing, these bare quantities are marked by a subscript "0" . We apply the renormalization
transformation to the parameters

e -> e = (1 + 5Z e )e,
Ml -> M a % = Ml + 5M 2 a , a = W,Z, H,

t^t = t + 5t. (6.1)

12

A X N. A A ^- X A A ^ X A A f \ A

_H_,/ \ H. _ _ JH / v H _ _ JH y V ii - - tl ^ H

\ / \ / \ /

x y x y x x

H «P 5C

a) b) c) d)

Figure 1: All diagrams of O(M^) contributing to 5M^.

The tadpole term t = v(fi 2 — At> 2 /4) is defined in the Lagrangian ( |2.1|) via the term tH(x).

We apply on-shell renormalization JET], |T7[, where Mw, Mz and Mh represent the
physical masses (propagator poles). The electric unit charge is defined in the Thomson
limit as usual, and the renormalized tadpole vanishes^ (t = 0). The remaining renormalized
parameters are fixed by the relations

M w r, V e e 2M w 2 M l

Cw= Mz' ^V 1 -^ 9i = ~, 92=-, v = —, „=— .

(6.2)

The on-shell conditions imply for the counterterms in flS.lp

SM 2 a =Re{^(M 2 a )}, a = W,Z,
6M& = Re{E^(M 2 )},

5Z P

2 dq 2

q 2 =0

St = -T A , (6.3)

where , T^ w , Ef z and T, HH represent the transversal parts of the unrenormalized
vector-boson self-energies and the unrenormalized ff-self-energy, respectively^. Concern-
ing vertex functions and self-energies our notation follows the one of Refs. JT^, [TTJ| through-
out. Since 5Z e , <5M W , 5 M| and St are calculated from vertex functions at low-energy scales,
i.e. \q 2 \ <C Mg, they can be read directly from the effective Lagrangian ( |5.8| ), which is
constructed at \q 2 \ <C M^. However, 5M| is fixed at q 2 = and thus cannot be read
from ( |5.8| ) but has to be calculated diagrammatically. As it turns out below, 5M^ is only
needed at O(M^) so that we merely have to consider those diagrams contributing to the
if -self-energy, which have internal Higgs or Goldstone lines but no vector lines, as shown
in Fig. ffl. We find

3 This means that the relation (2.5) holds for renormalized quantities, whereas for unrenormalized pa-
rameters io-terms occur. In order to avoid confusion we omitted t in the previous sections, but reintroduce
it here.

Note that 5Z e gets no contribution from the AZ-mixing self-energy owing to X^ z (0) = 0, which
follows from the Ward identity £jp (q 2 ) = @,

13

5 Ml

SM^

SM\

St

sz e

1

2 3M 2

167T 2
1

16vT 2

<:)2

gl

8M 2 ,

4/010

M| Re {5 (M2, 0, 0)} + 3Af|BoM, M H) M H ) + J 010 ] + 0(A®
+ 0(M°),

ATifi-

1

167T 2

^M 2

^2^/010 +

'4M

w

where B denotes the general scalar two-point function

B (k 2 ,M ,M 1

[p 2 - Ml + ie] [(p + k) 2 - Ml + ie]

The -Bo-terms occurring in (|6.4j) are explicitly given in App. [A].
In addition we introduce the field renormalization

(6.4)

(6.5)

^0

zTP

;i + -5Z P )F,

F = W,B, H, ip.

The renormalized Lagrangian remains gauge-invariant |ITfl, if one chooses

SZ-

w

-2^,

92

SZ

B

9i

SZ^ = 2—,

v

(6.6)

(6.7)

while SZfj can be chosen arbitrarily. Since SZfj drops out anyhow when H is removed
from the theory, we can simply choose

sz 6

0.

(6i

With the choice (|6.7|) the propagators of the massive gauge bosons acquire residues different
from one. However, for the construction of the effective Lagrangian we only need for the
gauge-boson field-renormalization constants that SZ^ and 5Z B only get contributions of
O(Mjj). This means that we could equivalently well normalize the residues of all gauge-
boson propagators to one without affecting the final result of the effective Lagrangian. On
the other hand, the condition (|6.7| ) for SZ$ is indeed necessary, because it guarantees that
the renormalization of the matrix U (|2.6|) does not yield contributions of 0(M|).

As discussed in Ref. Q, we do not have to carry out the complete renormalization for
the calculation of the effective Lagrangian. It is sufficient to determine the if -dependent
part of the counterterm Lagrangian

/"Ct

H

StH - -SMlH 2
2 H

1 SM 2

w

2 g 2 Mi

w

(6.9)

This part yields contributions when eliminating the background field H in the next sec-
tion, i.e. in a diagrammatical procedure these terms contribute to reducible diagrams with

14

internal Higgs tree lines. Therefore, we do not have to calculate the counterterms com-
pletely, but only those contributions which yield O(M^) effects to the final Lagrangian. In
particular, 5M^ only has to be determined at O(M^), because H turns out to be 0{M^ 2 )
when it will be eliminated in the next section. For the same reason it is sufficient to
consider 5M^ only at 0(M|).

As in Ref. 0, we call the sum of C e g ( |5.8|) and C$ ( |6.9|) the renormalized effective
Lagrangian C™- Inserting (|6.4j) , we find for the ^-dependent part of £g| n

/Ten I

(3/020 - W (M H , M E , M h ) - Re {b (M h , 0,0)}) H

J010 + 4/^(1) + 3M H / 020 - 12M|/ m )i/tr {%&"}

(6.10)

while the .//-independent part is obviously the same as in ( |j]8

7 Elimination of the background Higgs field

Having integrated out the quantum Higgs field H, which corresponds to Higgs lines in
loops, the effective Lagrangian still contains the background Higgs field H, which corre-
sponds to Higgs tree lines in Feynman diagrams. The field H can now be eliminated in
complete analogy to the procedure of Ref. 0] so that we discuss this point only briefly here.
Since the //-field corresponds to tree lines, the -//-propagators can be expanded in powers
of 1/Mg for Mh — > 00. Diagrammatically this means that the .//-propagator shrinks to a
point rendering such (sub-)graphs irreducible which contain i/-lines only. The tree-level
Lagrangian of the SM implies that this expansion corresponds to the replacement

H

M

w

g 2 M£

tr {VpY*} + 0{M£

(7.i;

The substitution (|7.1|) can be alternatively motivated by the fact that it corresponds to the
use of the equation of motion (EOM) for the background Higgs field, which is fulfilled in

lowest order by the tree-like part of Feynman diagrams. After applying (|7.1 ), the effective
Lagrangian C T ^ becomes:

/"rcn

16tt 2

+ 9I

) + M^/ n-/iTi(l))tr{v;^}
|/ii2 + 2/213) tT {W^W 1 ™}

+ 9i

hn + his )B liV B ,J,v

2 si

w

An(l)

+

9i

92

hl2+ 4/213) A

15

+ - ( - ^112 + 4J 2 13

92

[ -4/ 213 + 2/ 222
1 .

+

8M,

j-'oio

H

2M

1 1

(1) + + ^121 + 4/ 2 13 + -^222

H

9 B {Ml M H , M h ) - 4 Re { 5 o(M^, 0,

+

'on

16

5/ii2 — 12/213 £1

16

(7.2)

Finally, we insert the explicit forms ( |A.l ) and ( |A.3| ) of the integrals in this expression and
find:

/Ten

1

-cff

16tt 5

-Mi + -M^ (A Mh + -

tr

24

if

48 V

6

3/.

+ - A Mw +

+

1

12
1

24
1

24
1

12
1

24

6jgl
6J g 2

+

A Mh +

1!^

6 / 92
^3

£ 5

— ( A Mn + — -

6

17

IT

79 9^
3

- 7 (A Mh + -)A

+ 0(M£ 2 ),

(7.3)

with Ajvf H being given in ( |A.2|) .

The tree-level Lagrangian of the SM for Mh — > 00 is the Lagrangian of the correspond-
ing SU(2)w x U(l)y gauged non-linear cr-model (GNLSM) [0, [HJ, which is obtained from
the SM Lagrangian simply be dropping the Higgs field in the non-linear realization of the
scalar fields

C

tree I

r-2\

(7.4)

16

with

i i l\/[~2

^gnlsm = "2 tr {W^W^} - -B^ --ftr {%V»} . (7.5)

The complete one-loop Lagrangian £ 1 - lo °P' ren Q f the SM for Mh — > oo consists of

three different parts: The effective Lagrangian C T e ^, the part £ 1_1o °p ^ of the one-loop
Lagrangian which does not contain the quantum Higgs field H, and the part C ct \jj =0 of the
countertem Lagrangian which does not contain the background field H . As in Ref . jl] , one
can easily show that eliminating the background Higgs field H in £}~ Xo °v by applying

1| ) simply results in dropping all terms which contain H. Thus, we find that the one-
loop Lagrangian of the SM for Mh — > oo is the sum of the one-loop Lagrangian of the
GNLSM, the corresponding counterterm Lagrangian, and the effective Lagrangian

r\— loop,reni _ loopi , /"cti , /Ten , /r\l -\/r— 2\

L. |M H -»oo - 1~ \ h= h =0 + L, \fj =0 + L cS + U{1V1 H )

= GNLSM + ^GNLSM + ^efi + ^(^R 2 )- (7-6)

The counterterm Lagrangian £q NLSM follows from the tree-level Lagrangian of the GNLSM
( [7.5| ) by applying the renormalization transformations ( |6.1| ) and (|6.6|) . The renormalization
constants occurring in £gnlsm are calculated from self-energies, as e.g. given in ( |Q| ) for
the mass and charge renormalization constants. Of course, the contribution of the effective
Lagrangian £ r c ™ to the relevant self-energies have to be included in this procedure.

The first three terms in ( |7.3| ) have the same structure as terms in the tree-level La-
grangian of the GNLSM ( |7.5|) . They can be absorbed into the corresponding counterterms
and have no effect on S-matrix elements. Furthermore, the £n-term in ( |7.^ ) does not af-
fect S-matrix elements 5 , because L\\ (|Q| ) can be eliminated by applying the EOMs |2(|

for the SU(2)w background vector fields within the GNLSM [|TJ,

D&W^ = --M W K. (7.7)

92

Using b&rD^W^ = 0, this leads to

= 0, (7.8)

which is valid at tree-level. Since £ v c ™ only contains background fields (corresponding
to tree lines), this is sufficient to render the contribution of Cu to the S-matrix zero.
Thus, the complete one-loop effects of a heavy Higgs boson on S-matrix elements, i.e. the
complete difference between the SM for Mh — > oo and the GNLSM contributing to the
S-matrix at one loop, are summarized in the effective Lagrangian

^(S-matrix) = JL j ^(a a/h + £)|m^ (tr {f V,}

5 £n yields contributions to S-matrix elements if massive fermions are included. This is discussed in
the next section.

17

24 V iMH 6
+ ^(^H + y)^tr{f[^,n}

-^( a ^ + t)mw}"

1 fx 79 9^3vr\ , r - - ,
- A M|I + -- — )(tr{V5,V}

24 V 3 2

+ G(Mi 2 ), (7.9)

where the explicit form of the traces (|5.1| ) is inserted.

Finally, we note that the result of our functional calculation ( |7.9| ) coincides with the
result of the diagrammatical calculation in Ref. HQ. (Note that our coupling constants
gi and g<i correspond to the constants g' and g in Ref. f| by the substitutions g\ — > g',
92 -> -g.)

8 Fermionic contributions to the effective Lagrangian

8.1 The fermionic part of the standard model Lagrangian

In the previous sections we have only considered the bosonic sector of the electroweak SM.
Now, we also include fermions in our calculation and determine the fermionic terms of the
low-energy effective Lagrangian generated by integrating out the Higgs field.
The fermionic part of the SM Lagrangian is

— /2 — —

C F = i fpf^UtrV /) (tyfMf&U-Sfff + */$M f w+*/) , (8.1)

where the index / labels the different fermion doublets with the mass matrixQ Mf, and
u)± denote the chirality projectors,

V,= M, «,= f:°), - ± = i(l±7 5 ). (8.2)

In ( ^.1|) and the following summation over all doublets ^/ is assumed. The covariant
derivatives are

D% ig 2 W»5 a ^ + ~<7i V- 8 " ( 8 - 3 )

We find a coefficient for the £n-term in (7.3) which is different from the one in Ref. H. This is

due to the fact that we use the non-linear parametrization of the Higgs sector (2.6) while in Ref. H the

linear one (2.4) is used. Such a reparametrization of the scalar fields may change Green functions but not
S-matrix elements |l3| , |l5| ]. As pointed out, the £n-term has no impact on S-matrix elements (as far as
one considers the pure bosonic sector).

We neglect quark mixing throughout, i.e. the CKM matrix is set to the unit matrix. The generalization
to finite quark mixing is straightforward.

18

with

Yf a = 2Q f - T 3 5 (J _

U)

where Qf is the electric charge matrix of tyf, and Yf jCr the weak hypercharge matrix of
u a ^ff. The scalar field $ is again non-linearly realized according to ( |2.(j| ).
The BFM is applied by splitting the fermion fields linearly according to

and the boson fields according to (|2
fermion fields [|TJ], |IJ|

5.5)

Finally, the Stueckelberg transformation of the

(8.6)

together with the one of the bosons ( 2.15|) removes the background Goldstone fields from
the Lagrangian.

8.2 Diagonalization

The one-loop part of Lagrangian ( |3.1| ) can be written in the symbolic form

£ i-ioop = y fAf y f _ tr {pSAyip} + Htv{6X Hv <p} + H^ f X fH + HX JH ^ f
+ IffMffpu-.Xfy + X^uj + ipM { ^f + IfftpMtu+X* + JcfyW-Mftptyf

+ * f tyx fw + x m W^ f + ^ f $x lB + x fB $* f ,

with the operators

1.7)

A/

SA l0

5X

ab

Hip

X

fH

X

fv

H

iiPf,aCJa -Mf\l + —
92 7j7

AM? '

—i

'w

92

H

v

2M W

92

M w U t; ,

-i-22-9 f 1 +

if

vv

x fw = guv-Vf, x n

2 J

(8.8)

The indices a and b in the third line denote the SU(2)w indices of the 2x2-matrix 5X Hv .

As in Sect. Bl the mixings between the quantum Higgs field if and the other quantum
fields can be removed by appropriate shifts of the quantum fields. It turns out to be useful

19

first to remove the H \1/ j-mixing in ( |S.7|) before diagonalizing the bosonic sector of the SM
Lagrangian ( |3.3|) . This can be achieved by the shifts

t> f -> * f - Aj l X fH H, Vf^Vf- HX fH Af (8.9)

with

A7 1 = 7o (A7 1 ) 7o , (8.10)

which modify the term bilinear in H and the ifyj-terms in ( |3.3| ) and (|8.7|) according to
A H - A H + 8 Ah, X Hv + 5X H ^ - X Bv + 5X Hv + (8.11)

with

5A H = 2X fH Aj X fH
Htr {5X' H ^} = - HX fH {AfM^W-X^) - HX fH (AftpMv+X*)

- X^u+ipMi (A/X fH H) - X? v u-M { <p (AfX fH H) . (8.12)

In flS.12| ), we define SX' Hv implicitly via H tr j^X^^j since its explicit expression outside

the trace is not needed in the following. In addition to ( |S.11D , there is a modification of
the HW- and i?5-terms, which however can be neg lected at O(Afg). We also had to
remove the ftp-, fW- and fB-terms by appropriate shifts before doing the shifts (|3.5|) in
the bosonic sector (such that those do not effect the fermionic sector), and finally reverse
these shifts in order to restore these terms. However, it turns out by simple power counting
that the contributions of these shifts to the As and Xs in the bosonic sector Q3.11| ) only
yield 0(MH 2 )-effects.

This means that all fermionic (9(M^)-contributions to C c g can be found by adding
5 Ah, SA V , 5X Hv and 8X' H given by (|8.8|) and ( |8.12| ) to the bosonic parameters fl3.11| ),

and proceeding as in the calculation of the bosonic part of C e g. Thus, Ah ( |3.8|) modifies
to

A H -> A H + 5~A H

= A H + 5A H -\ tr {X H J (A- 1 ) Xl} - \ (tr {bX^A^X^ + h.c.)

- \ tr {6X^6X1} - I (tr {dX'^X^} + h.c.) + 0(C 3 ) (8.13)

with

5 (A- 1 ) = (A^TSA^f -A' 1 . (8.14)
In (|8.13|) terms yielding only (9(MH 2 )-contributions are again neglected.

8.3 l/M H -Expansion

The fermionic part of £ e ff can be derived by expanding the contribution of 5 Ah in (|8.13|)
to (Oj) in analogy to the procedure described in Sect. f|. This yields

6CeS = { ~Si; Ion ^ fM ^ f + uk (/on " 2/ll2) ^f M ^ Mu -^f

20

2M 2 ,

92 t 7f7

J112*/ [2M f $M f u; + - (M 2 (^ + <^M f 2

4M

w

W2

9l
32M^

J 112 * / M f * / tr{(7 M C" i }

(Jon - 2/ U2 ) f / [(D^Cj M fW+ - M f (D^C,

10 _

/on

*/ (TjM f o; + - MiTiUjJ) */

*// (r i M f /c i ; + - Mi>TiU)-) ^ f >

(8.15)

Strictly speaking, in ( |3.15| ) vacuum integrals of the form

(27T/X)

4-D

(p 2 - M^) l (p 2 - Mf) m ^(p 2 - Mf )™2

with M 2 2 = £M^ z ,m 2 (8.16)

occur, because in addition to the bosonic propagators there are also fermionic ones. Since

in (|8.15|) only logarithmically divergent integrals are relevant, which are independent of
M 2 and Mf (and thus depend only on m = mi + 1712) at O(M^), these are still given by
the explicit expressions ( |A.1| ) for the integrals Iki m ( (4.4| ). In particular, the fact that the
fermion masses within a doublet can be different does not effect these integrals at O(M^).

The origin of the various terms in C c r ( |3.15|) is the following: the first two terms are the
contribution of 5Ah in ( |S.13j ), the third term is the contribution of SX^A^X^ + h.c,

the fourth stems from X Hv 5 (A^ 1 ) the fifth from SX^A^X^ + h.c, and the last

from 5X Htp A~ 1 8X] Iv . Note that the explicit occurrence of the Pauli matrices Tj in the last

term in ( |8.15| ) is a consequence of the operator P ( |3.10| ) in A" 1 (2;, d x + ip) (|4.8j).

8.4 The Stueckelberg formalism

We invert the Stueckelberg transformation ( |2.15| ), ( |3.6|) in order to rewrite 5C e s in a
gauge-invariant form. The inverse Stueckelberg transformation is given by (|5.6|) and

u-4ff -> fftu)-4f f , tyfOJ+ -> tyjuj+U, io + ^ f -> u+iff, tyfuo- -> tyfU)-. (8.17)
This yields

5C

1

cff

92 t in

16tt 2

+

4M 2 ,
4M 2 ,

/on*/ [UMfu) + + M^f/W) *

/on - 2/ U2 ) * y (M{tfpf-UM t cu + + UM { p f , + M { tfuJ) */

2M

w

5-/112*/ 2M f £/ t y77M f a>+ - (f/M f 2 f/Y+ yuMfu^

0J-

21

+

9l

2M^

lion - 2/m) *j

<? 2 4

'on

1> (UTiM V UJ + - Mi'TitfuJ) *//

This Lagrangian is invariant under the background gauge transformations (|2.12| ) and

U-^ff^SSYi_^-^f, f ^ Sy { + UJ + ty f,

^ f uj + —>^ f Lu + Sl f HfU)-.^HfU)-.S^ f + , (8

where 5 is given by fl2.13| ) and Sy { a by

Sy tta = exp (-IgM^ (8.20)

.19)

with the weak hypercharges Yf jCr

The second term in (|8.18|) can be simplified by applying the product rule for the
covariant derivatives. This yields a term with derivatives acting only on the fermion fields
and a term which has the same structure as the third term in (|8.18| ). The dimension-4

part (i.e. the second and third term) of (|8.18|) becomes
1 f

8C

eff|dim=4

167T 2

+

(hn ~ 2/i

12/

8M

2~(A)11
W

6/112)*/

[M?fl L+ uj + + UMfrfpfi-u;-) + h.c.
2M f f> t VT>M f cj+

UJ-

(8.21)

8.5 Renormalization

In analogy to Sect. ||, we have to add the fermionic part of the Higgs dependent countert-
erms to 5£ c ff- The parameter- and field-renormalization transformations of the fermions
are

m f .

^,0 = "ifi + Sm u ,

From (|8.18| ) one immediately reads

<-7.

0(M°), = O(M^)

(8.22)

(8.23)

22

In this context, one should notice that the renormalized effective action only remains
gauge-invariant if the left-handed fermion-doublet field u)-*f?f is renormalized by one renor-
malization constant, i.e. SZ^ = 8Zi = SZ^ 2 (in 5Zf the superscripts R/L are used instead
of o~ = +/— ). Similarly to the case of the gauge-boson fields considered in Sect. || the
explicit form of the field- renormalization constants SZj. is irrelevant for the construction
of the effective Lagrangian as long as ( 8.23 ) holds. In particular, ( |S.23| ) is fulfilled in the
complete on-shell scheme |T7[, where all fermion propagators acquire residues equal to one.

According to simple power counting, we only have to consider the contribution of 8M^ to

5£ c - t -

set =

4M 3 S

w

(8.24)

with <5M\y given in (|6.4| ). The fermionic part of the renormalized effective Lagrangian
is the sum of 5C cS flP8D and 5C$ ( ggg ).

8.6 Elimination of the background Higgs field

As in Sect. [?], we can eliminate the background Higgs field H by a propagator expansion,
or equivalently by an application of the EOM for H in lowest order. The fermionic part
of the SM Lagrangian (|8.1| ) implies that (|7.1| ) generalizes to

H

Mi

w

g 2 Ml

tr

92 ^

2M W M|

V f (UM i uj + + Mfrfw-) V f + C(M£ 4 ). (8.25)

Applying this to the complete effective Lagrangian (i.e. to the bosonic and to the fermionic
part), we finally find

r /Ten
0L o

-"eff

16tt 2

+
+

+

Jon*/ (UM?uo + + MfU ] u_) ^

9l

i on t f

igl

(/on -

(/on -

g\

j/020 "

2I X

12)

iff (Mfp f)+ u + + UM^U ] p f ^uj^j i! f + h.c.

/on - 6/112)*/ 2MiWyUM{LU + -

1 3 9

V 112 + V 121 ~ 16

^-B (MlM n ,M R )

- —Re {b q {M&, 0,0)}) % (UM { u + + M { fru.) tf/trjv^"}

+

g| (
2MV

32M^

/on - 2Jn 2 ) */ [(^t^) f>M f cu+ - M f fr (D^V,
/on (c/TiM f a; + - Mf-r^W) &

23

+

9%

8M^

^/oio + ^An(l) + ^020 - \b»{MI M h , M h )

- -Re {B {M^, 0, 0)) | |¥/ (f>M f c^ + + M t fru-) iff
x fyv (UM { ,u + + Mf/C/W) *//

+ 0(M H 2 ).

With the explicit expressions for the integrals ( |A.1| ) this becomes

(8.26)

r /Ten

1 r I-- ^

16tt s

4

w

(A Mh + 1) -^-^ (C/M f V + M f 3 f/W) *

+ h ( Amh + D w

i

16

w

2

(Mfp ft+ u+ + UM?tfp f ^uj-) iff + h.c.
2M f £ t yT>M f w+ -

I (am h + I - ^) J^/ (<7M f u, + + M f f)W) * /t r

w

1
4
1

32

'w

3 fx 23 /- \ o2

t f (UT i M i u + - MfTiU*u-} iff

(8.27)

8.7 Equations of motion and S-matrix

The tree-level and one-loop Lagrangian of the SM for Mh — > oo are given by (|7.4j) and
( [T.6|) , respectively. The fermionic part of the GNLSM Lagrangian is derived from the SM
Lagrangian (|8.1|) by dropping the Higgs field in the non-linear parametrization (|2.6|) :

£gNLSM,F = i (VfpfJJaVf) ~ (VfMftfu-Vf+VfUMfW+Vf) . (8.28)

The first term in ( 8.27|) has the same structure as the Yukawa term in the GNLSM

Lagrangian (|8.28 ). Since the masses of the fermion doublet are renormalized indepen-
dently, this term can be absorbed into the corresponding counterterm, and thus it does
not contribute to the S-matrix.

24

Next, we consider the second line in ( 8.27 ) which is related to the kinetic term in ( |3.28| ).
The a; + -part can be completely absorbed into the counterterm to the kinetic terms for the
right-handed fermion fields since these are renormalized independently. For the c<j_-part
it is useful to decompose Mf ( ^.2|) as pi

(8.29)

and M f 2 accordingly. The contribution proportional to the unit matrix inserted into the
u;_-term yields a term, which can be absorbed into the kinetic term of the left-handed
fermion doublet. Thus, the only part of the second line in flS.27| ) which contributes to the
S-Matrix is

5£^(S-Matrix)|^ /

16vr 2 32

(ml - ml)

(8.30)

with T defined in ( |5.2|) .

Finally, we may use the classical EOMs for the background fields in order to remove the
£)(^V^-terms in C r ^. Such an application of the EOM within the effective interaction term
corresponds to a shift of the background fields which does not effect S-matrix elements
|20| . Relation ( |7.7| ) was derived for the pure bosonic sector of the SM. Taking into account
massive fermions, the EOM for the SU(2)w gauge fields within the GNLSM become

— A%K + PA 1<V with A*

92

ab

(8.31)

and ( ]7.8| ) generalizes to

D^% = PA 2 with Af

(8.32)

where P is the operator defined in (|3.10|) . In (|8.31 ) and (|8.32|) and the following, the
indices a and b denote the SU(2) W indices of the 2x2-matrices Ai. Then, we can apply
the EOMs for the fermion fields within the GNLSM

(8.33)

and find

D^ = PA 3 with A 3

ab

9l

(8.34)

Applying this to the D^V^-term in ( |3.27|) one finds

ti f (Ut 1 M { lu + - M f TiU f uj-) i>

4Mw

(UTiMf,UJ + - MfTiffiw-) V r

(8.35)

25

and inserting this into C\\ of ( |5.1| ), one obtains

Ai

9i

8M^

iff (UTiM { UJ + - M { TiU ] Uj\ iff iff (UTiM V UJ + - MpTiU^LJ-) iff

. (8.36)

(8.37)

To derive ( |8.35|) and ( |3.36| ), we have used the definition (|3.10|) and the identity

tr {(PAU)(PBU)} = tr{(PUA){PUB)}

where A and B are arbitrary 2x2-matrices and U is an SU(2) matrix. Equation ( |8.37| )
is proven in App. ||. Thus, if one considers massive fermions, the contribution of C\x to
S-matrix elements does not vanish unlike in the pure bosonic sector. £ n yields an effective
four-fermion interaction which is quartic in the fermion masses. With ( |8.35| ) and ( |8.36| )

the D^V^-terms in ( |7.3|) and ( 8.27 ) take the form of one of the four-fermion terms already
present in ( |8.27|) .

Considering renormalization and the use of the EOMs, the fermionic contribution to
the Lagrangian S-matrix) (|7.9j), which contains all effects of the heavy Higgs boson
on S-matrix elements, is given by0

5Qf (S-matrix)

— I A Mh

1

32
1

16

A

167T 2 (

^f f

M? f

w

21 _ 3^
2 ~

* fTpf-uJil f + h.c.

w

iff (UM{UJ+ + MfU^oj-) if ftr {VpY*}

192

iff (f>TiM f cj + - MfTitfiwJ) if j

*// ( UTiMf>U+ - MpTifruJ) iff

23

4: A MlT + ^-V3-

64

+ 0(M£ 2 ).

7T

iff (UM P u+ + MptfiwJ) iff

(8.38)

9 Discussion of the result

Inspecting the bosonic part of the effective Lagrangian (7.9), we see that the first two terms
contribute to vector-boson two-point (and higher) functions, the third and the fourth to

8 Note that in the linear parametrization of the SM no (^/r^/) 2 - and \& f(DwV)if? / -terms are gener-
ated directly, because they correspond to diagrams with vpy ^ jcpH -couplings, which only exist in the non-
linear parametrization. Thu s, within th at fra mework the only contribution to the (\E'/Ti^'/) 2 -term comes
from £n according to ( 3.36). Applying (3.36) to the £n-term in Ref. ||, where the linear parametrization

was used, we find that our result for the ('5 fT{& /) 2 -term is consistent with the one of Ref. ||; i.e. the
difference in the £ii-term between Ref. H and this article is compensated by fermionic terms.

26

vector-boson three-point (and higher) functions, and the last two to vector-boson four-
point functions. This means that the first two terms parametrize the effects of the heavy
Higgs boson on LEP 1 physics, the next two become relevant for LEP 2 physics, and the
last two for LHC physics.

By naive power counting one expects that integrating out the Higgs boson gener-
ates dimension-2 terms at O(M^) and dimension-4 terms at O(M^) (i.e. proportional
to logM H ) || [T$|, [HJ. Actually, only those effective terms which do not violate custo-

dial SU(2)w invariance are generated at this order. However, the effective Lagrangian
( [7.31 ) contains only one custodial-SU(2) w - violating term[], namely C (|5.1|). This is a
dimension-2 term; nevertheless it is only generated at O(M^). There are 7 custodial-
SU(2) w -violating dimension-4 terms || [TI| but none of them is generated at O(M^).
This means that custodial-SU(2)w-breaking terms are suppressed by at least a factor of
Myj/M^ in comparison to the prediction of naive power counting. Actually, the reason
for this suppression also follows from a (slightly more involved) power counting argument:
The custodial-SU(2)\y-breaking terms are those which explicitly contain the operator P3
defined in ( |3 . 1 0[ ) . However, as shown in Sect. |], all contributions from that operator to

A if (x, d x +ip) and thus to £ e fr have the form (M^—M^Ps (see eq. ( |4.9|) ). Therefore, P 3 al-
ways occurs together with a power of and for dimensional reasons these contributions
are suppressed by an additional power of M^/Mg.

The fermionic part of the effective Lagrangian (|8.38|) contains contributions to fermion

two-point functions in the first term, to fermion-fermion-vector couplings in the first
and the second term, fermion-fermion-vector-vector couplings in the third term and four-
fermion interactions in the last two terms. All effective fermionic couplings have at least
a factor m^/Myv- Consequently, the fermionic part of the effective Lagrangian ( ^.38 ) van-

ishes for massless fermions (and is suppressed for light fermions), i.e. the purely bosonic
effective Lagrangian Q describes all £>(M£)-effects of the heavy Higgs boson in this
case. Unlike the bosonic terms, the effective fermionic interactions of course break custo-
dial SU(2)w owing to the occurrence of the non-degenerate fermion-mass matrix Mf ( |3.2|) .
Furthermore, also effective fermionic terms of dimension 5 or 6 are generated at (9(M[j)
and not only dimension-4 terms like in the bosonic sector.

In analogy to the simpler SU(2) toy model considered in Ref. PJ, we find that the
limit Mr — > 00 of the standard model at one loop is the corresponding GNLSM plus the
effective interaction terms given in (|7.9| ) and (|8.38|) , which describe the one- loop effects
of the heavy Higgs boson. In order to calculate the complete one-loop effects to a given
process at O(M^), one still has to consider the effects of the light quantum fields in
the GNLSM Lagrangian. The coefficients of the effective terms in ( |7.9| ), ( |3.38| ) contain
logarithmic divergences A (see ( |A.2|) ). Since the SM is is renormalizable, these UV-

divergences necessarily cancel against the logarithmically divergent contributions of the
non- renormalizable one- loop Lagrangian of the GNLSM /^gn'lsm m Q7.6Q . These have been

Strictly speaking, the designation "custodial SU(2)w invariance", i.e. global SU(2)\y invariance in the

absence of the -B-field, is misleading, because locally SU(2)wxU(l)Y-mvariant terms as in (5.1) automati-
cally fulfill this invariance. In the literature the expression "custodial-SU(2)\y-invariant" is commonly used
for terms which are custodial-SU(2)w-invariant when additionally the Goldstone fields are disregarded

(rhs of (5.1)), and in this sense it also has to be understood in this article. The custodial-SU(2)\y-violating

terms are then those containing the operator T (5.2) but not explicitly the .B-field

27

calculated for the bosonic part of the GNLSM in Ref. [|BJ and for the dimension-4 terms of
the fermionic part in Ref. |2l| . Comparing our result ( |7.9|) with Ref. [ 19| and the first two

terms in ( |8.38| ) with Ref. we ^ n< ^ that the divergencies indeed cancel. In particular,

since logarithmic divergences and logMn-terms always occur in the linear combination
Am h (|A.2| ), the logarithmically divergent one-loop contributions of the GNLSM to S-

matrix elements coincide with the logarithmically Mn-dependent one-loop contributions
in the SM, if one replaces

- 7 £ + log(47r) +\ogfi 2 -> logM*. (9.1)

A-D

However, the Lagrangians ( |7.9j ) and ( fg. 38j ) contain additional finite and M H -independent
contributions. Thus, the logMn one-loop contributions to the S-matrix in the SM can
alternatively be calculated in the GNLSM with the replacement ( |9.1| ), however the con-
stant contribution cannot be calculated within this model. Therefore, the GNLSM is not
identical to the limit Mh ~~ °o of the SM beyond tree- level. In this context, it should be
kept in mind that these results are derived in dimensional regularization.

The non-decoupling one-loop contributions of a heavy Higgs boson to physical ob-
servables can directly be read from the effective Lagrangians (|7.9|) and (|8.38|) simply by
calculating the contributions of the generated effective terms (which only contain back-
ground fields) at tree level.

10 Physical applications

In this section we illustrate the use of the constructed effective Lagrangian. We derive
the heavy-Higgs effects for some vertex functions and transition amplitudes directly from
our effective Lagrangian. As a consistency check, we compare the results with those of a
diagrammatical calculation.

We skip the well-known heavy-Higgs effects on LEP1 observables, where the Higgs-
boson dependence is merely due to vacuum-polarization effects in the gauge-boson propa-
gators. The corresponding logMn-terms can easily be read off from the first two lines in
the effective Lagrangian (|7]9|).

10.1 Bosonic processes

We start by considering vector-boson scattering. In Ref. |22| the heavy-Higgs effects on
the one-loop radiative corrections to 77 — > W + W~ in the SM have been investigated
and related to the corrections within the GNLSM. From our Lagrangian ( |7.9| ) it is very
easy to reproduce the results given there so that we do not repeat the explicit formulas.
We just note that no logMn-terms in the SM with a heavy Higgs boson appear, i.e.
the one-loop corrections to 77 — > W + W~ in the GNLSM are UV-finite despite of the
non-renormalizability of the GNLSM.

10t

'in order to compare ( |8.38 ) with Ref. (2l[] one has to decompose Mf (^2) according to ( B.29| ). The
logarithmically divergent contributions of the GNLSM to the fermionic dimension-5 and -6 terms (third
to fifth term in ( |S.38 )) have to our knowledge not been calculated in the literature.

28

As a second example we treat the process

W+^x, Ai) + W~(k 2 , A 2 ) -> W + (k 3 , A3) + W-(A: 4 , A 4 )

in the heavy-Higgs limit. Here fci^ denote the (incoming) momenta of the incoming W
bosons, and k 3)i the (outgoing) momenta of the outgoing W bosons. The corresponding
Mandelstam variables are defined by

(h + k 2 ) 2 , t=(h- k 3 f

u

{h - h)

(10.1)

The helicity states are labeled by A«, and the corresponding polarization vectors by £j. In
the limit s, —t, —u, M|y <C M^ the tree-level transition amplitude Aio is given by

Mr

Ana

Ml

+ (ei ■ el){e 2 ■ e* 3 ) - (e 1 ■ e 2 )(e* 3 ■ el)

Ana-

Ml

sis

Ml)

+ crossed + 0(M^

-2^

10.2)

where crossing means the interchanges e 2 <-> £3, k 2 <-> —k 3 . Note that the single contri-
butions in (|10.2|) are arranged according to the independent couplings g 2 = e/s w and e,
where a = e 2 /An is the usual fine-structure constant. The following shorthands have been
introduced,

M s

M'

10.3)

Now, we consider the one-loop effects of the heavy Higgs boson to this process, which can be
obtained from the effective Lagrangians ( |7.3| ) or (|7.9j), respectively, simply by calculating
the tree-level contributions of Cl^. As explained above, only the terms in ( |7.9| ) are relevant
for the contribution to the S-matrix element, whereas the additional terms in (|7.3|) cancel
exactly. The effective Lagrangian yields the difference 5M = SMsm — ^A^gnlsm (in
dimensional regularization) between the one-loop corrections to the amplitude in the SM
with a heavy Higgs boson and the GNLSM, respectively. One finds
,2

M' s + (

u —

t)(ei

■e2M

■el)

+ 2(ei

Pi-

e\){k 2 -

el)

~(kx

■el)(k 2

el)}

+ 2( £ *

■el)

l(h-

e 2 )(k A ■

ei)

-(h

ex)(h

e 2 )),

4(fci

■£2)

el){ei ■

el)

-(h

■e* 3 )(ei

el)}

+ A(k 2

■ex]

i(k 4

el){e 2 -

el)

-(A*

el)(e 2

el)}

+ 2(ei

■e 2 )

[(*!■

el)(k 2 -

el)

-{kx

el)(h

el)}

+m

■el)

K*3-

£ 2 )(&4 ■

ex)

-(h

■sx)(k 4

e 2 )}-

5M

a

6
1

12

Am h +

19\ / M t

30/ \s-Ml

+ (e 1 -el)(e 2 -el) - (e 1 ■ e 2 )(e* 3 ■ e" 4

Am h +

17\

-- A

+

6 J

175
~12

) (e 1 -el)(e 2 -e* 3
9\/3V

si • e 2 )(el ■ el)

a 2 I

Ml

sl6s(s-Ml

-M' s + crossed + 0(M^'

10.4)

29

The single terms in (|10.4 ) are arranged such that only the second and the third line
yield contributions of order xy/M^ (x,y = s,t,u) in the high-energy limit for purely
longitudinally polarized W bosons. These terms entirely originate from the genuine four-
point operators in the effective Lagrangian, i.e. from £ 4 and £5. The complete xy/M^-
terms of the one-loop correction to WjW L — > Wl W[ in the limit <C s, —t, —u <C
M| were calculated in Ref. [23| and Ref. [24 in an SU(2) gauge theory and the SM,

respectively. Comparing our results with the ones given there, we find agreement for the
log Mn-terms and the "v^SV" term, which stems from Higgs-mass renormalization. The
remaining Mu-independent xy / Myy-terms are of course different since additional terms of
this kind originate from bosonic loops without Higgs bosons, which are equal in the SM and
GNLSM. As a consistency check, we have also calculated 8M. diagrammatically and found
the same result. Figures @||f| show the Higgs- mass-dependent subdiagrams contributing
in O(M^) to Feynman diagrams and counterterms which are reducible with respect to
light particles. The irreducible O(M^) contributions and those which are reducible with
respect to the heavy Higgs field (which correspond to the irreducible contributions of £^ n )
are depicted in Fig. |5| (where all fields are assumed to be incoming). The advantage of
our effective-Lagrangian approach is obvious: in a diagrammatical calculation all these
diagrams have to be evaluated while in the effective-Lagrangian calculation one only has
to consider the tree- level contributions of C^s ( [7.91) .

10.2 Fermionic processes

Now, we turn to examples involving massive fermions. The only Higgs-mass- dependent
contributions of the effective Lagrangian ( 8.26| ) to the fermion self-energy are contained
in the first two terms, viz.

9l

1717

64vr 2 M{y

(/on - 2J 112 ) + 0(Mh

gf ml
64vr 2

where our conventions for the fermionic self-energy follow the ones of Ref. |Tl|
diagrammatical calculation, these contributions stem from the graph of Fig. |6].a)
( |10.5| ), we get for the contributions to the renormalization constants,

(10.5)

In a
Using

Ml

92 m l
32tt 2

(/ h-2/ 112 ) + 0(M£ 2 ),

92 m l

(/on - 2/ 112 ) + 0(M^'

(10.6)

The field-renormalization constants 5ZJ. are chosen such that the residue of the fi propa-
gator equals one. Combining ( |10.5| ) and ( |10.6| ), we obtain that the renormalized fermion
self-energy contains no Higgs-mass-dependent terms of O(Mjj),

<5£

f;f;,ren
L/R/S

11 The terms of the order (xy/M^) logMn were already given in Ref. J|]

divergences (A-terms) within the GNLSM and using the replacement (3.1).

(10.7)

by calculating the logarithmic

30

9

a) b) c)

Figure 2: Higgs diagrams to the H^-self-energy.

A A

Z / \ Z

a)

H

A

z

/ \

V J

H H

b) c)

Figure 3: Higgs diagrams to the Z-self-energy.

A

z

A

z

a)

H

W.

W +

A A , ^

A

z

X (pj,

w.

w +

b)

ii A

H/ » W.

Y, Z * A>

A A

Y,Z .-9

c)

H

A

w.

d)

e)

Figure 4: Higgs diagrams of O(M^) for the ZW + W - and AW + W -vertex functions.

The Higgs-mass dependence of the photon-fermion-fermion vertex is contained in the sec-
ond term in (|3.26|) , which yields

iQ u eg 2 2 m 2 u
64vr 2

7m (Jou -2/n 2 ) + 0(M^ 2 ).

(10.8)

In a diagrammatical calculation one has to calculate the graph shown in Fig. [].b). Again
after renormalization no O(M^) survives for this vertex function,

(10.9)

The O(Mft) contributions to ST^ ii{i are cancelled by the fermionic wave-function correc-
tions, and the charge renormalization constant does not contain terms of O(M^). From

31

+ crossed graphs (external W interchanged)

Figure 5: Higgs diagrams of O(M^) for the one-particle-irreducible and the heavy-Higgs
reducible l^ + W^~W^ + W^ _ -four-point function.

32

a) b) c)

Figure 6: Higgs diagrams contributing to the a) fermion self-energy, b) photon-fermion-
fermion vertex, c) gluon-fermion-fermion vertex.

10.7| ) and ( |10.9| ) we draw the conclusion that no (9(Mjj)-terms of the effective Lagrangian

contribute e.g. to the SM one-loop corrections to 77 — > fjfj. This means that the SM
one-loop prediction for 77 — > fjfj in the heavy-Higgs limit approaches asymptotically the
GNLSM correction, which is UV-fmite either. The analogue conclusion also holds for
gluon-gluon fusion, gg — > fjfj, since the Higgs-mass-dependent subdiagrams of O(M^) are
the same as for 77 — > fjfj with the external photons replaced by gluons. More precisely,
only the diagrams shown in Figs. |6|a),c) are relevant. For instance, the complete SM one-
loop correction to gg — > tt can be found in Ref. f25(| . From the results given there, one can
see that the relative one-loop correction approaches a constant for Mh — > 00 in consistence
with our result.

The result (|10.9| ) is in agreement with the one obtained in Ref. |26f for the 7tt-vertex.

Inspecting our corresponding results for the fermion-mass-dependent terms of the ttZ- and
the tbW -vertices,

ST^ h ^(k,p,p)

■ 3 2

= (^oii - 6J 112 ) + (Vtenns) + 0(M H 2 ),

igl (m 2 t +ml m t m h \

Mf 128^2 ' M V M w M w

+ (Vterms) + C(M H 2 ). (10.10)

which are contained in the second and third terms in ( |S.26| )P1, we also find agreement with
Ref. , where the m 2 log Mn-terms were calculated.

Finally, we investigate the heavy-Higgs effects to the top-quark decay t — > W + b. In
lowest order the transition amplitude for this process is given by

M = tZ(pb)^-«(Pt), (10.11)

with p t and u(p t ) (pb and u(pi,)) denoting the incoming (outgoing) momentum and spinor
for the top(bottom)-quark, respectively, represents the polarization vector of the W

12 As indi cate d in ( |10.10[ ), there are also fc M -terms stemming from the fift h ter m in ( |S.26 ). As explained

in Subsect. p.7| , this term becomes a four-fermion term in £^(S- matrix) ( S.38 ) after applying the EOM.
Thus, its contribution is not considered here.

33

a) b) c) d)

Figure 7: Higgs diagrams of O(M^) for the ibW~- vertex function.

boson. The complete difference 5M. = 5-Msm — ^.Mqnlsm can easily be calculated from
the effective interaction terms ( |10.10| ). We obtain

GCt

ITS

11 /a 5

IT ( Mh + 6

- O^lfr+.W^i ( A Mh + ) \ + 0(A/ H - 2 ). (10.12)

Alternatively, ( |1(J.12| ) could be derived by calculating the diagrams shown in Fig. |7j, where

graph |7|.d) does not contribute to the S-matrix element. The term in ( |10.12j ) which is not
multiplied by fermion masses is entirely due to coupling-constant and W-wave-function
renormalization. It is associated with the well-known variable Ar, i.e. it is absent in
a renormalization scheme, where the Fermi constant Gf is used as an input parameter
instead of the W mass Mw- The Mh dependence of the top width originating from
the remaining logMn-terms in (|10.12|) is e.g. numerically discussed in Ref. [27], where

the complete one-loop SM correction is calculated. The (m^/M^) log Mn-term can for

instance be found in Ref. [28| in agreement with our result.

11 Conclusion

In this article we have integrated out the Higgs boson in the electroweak standard model
directly in the path integral, assuming that it is very heavy. We have expressed all non-
decoupling effects, i.e. effects of 0(M H ), of the heavy Higgs boson (including fermionic
effects) in terms of an effective Lagrangian, from which the leading contributions of the
Higgs boson to physical parameters and scattering processes can easily be read.

For the bosonic sector of the SM, this result itself is essentially already known from
the diagrammatical calculation of Ref. |J. However, we have derived it in a completely
different way, viz. by integrating out the Higgs boson directly in the path integral in-
stead of calculating Feynman diagrams and matching the full theory to the effective one.
The functional method is a methodical progress for several reasons: As pointed out in
Ref. [TBI, diagrammatical calculations like those in Ref. M cannot determine the full con-

tent of Green function but only the "physically relevant parts" . This is due to problems
with gauge invariance of the matching conditions. However, owing to the application of
the background-field method and the Stueckelberg formalism, our direct calculation yields

34

the complete effective Lagrangian in a manifestly gauge- invariant form without those prob-
lems. Moreover, the functional method is a huge technical simplification in comparison
to the diagrammatical one, because in the functional approach the effective Lagrangian
- which contains contributions to many Green functions - is generated directly by inte-
grating out the heavy field. In a diagrammatical calculation one has to calculate various
Green functions (i.e. very many Feynman graphs), to write down all effective interaction
terms which could possibly be generated, and then determine the effective Lagrangian
by comparing coefficients ||. We can use the convenient matrix notation throughout,
i.e. we do not have to specify the single components of the fields. For the background
fields we even do not have to introduce the physical basis. A striking simplification within
our method is the fact that it is completely obvious that only 7 of 14 possible effective
bosonic interaction terms of dimension 4 (or 2) are generated in O(M^) at one loop,
i.e. that the 7 custodial-SU(2)\y- violating dimension-4 terms are only of 0(M^ 2 ). This
result was also found by the diagrammatical calculation in Ref. ||, however no obvious
reason why these terms cancel can be seen there. In our direct calculation these terms are
not generated from the beginning; i.e. there are no cancellations. The suppression of all
custodial-SU(2)-vv- violating terms by one power of M^/M^ follows in our approach from
a simple power-counting argument.

In addition, we also considered the fermionic sector of the standard model when inte-
grating out the Higgs field, and constructed the fermionic terms of the effective Lagrangian.
These have not been completely calculated before, neither functionally nor diagrammat-
ically. Also this calculation becomes straightforward owing to the use of our functional
method. If one applied the diagrammatical method, one would have to write down all
possible effective interaction terms in order to find the matching conditions. Since even
dimension-5 and -6 terms are are generated, this would be a large number, while in a
functional calculation also these terms are generated directly.

In the present article we have integrated out a non- decoupling heavy field. However,
the generalization of our method to the case of decoupling fields is straightforward yielding
a wide field of phenomenologically interesting applications.

Acknowledgement

C.G.-K. thanks the University of Bielefeld for hospitality during his visit.

Appendix

A Explicit expressions for the one-loop integrals

In Sect. |] the construction of the unrenormalized effective Lagrangian ( |4.10 ) was traced

back to the vacuum integrals I^ m (£) defined in ([O]). Such vacuum integrals are easily
calculated and their explicit expressions are already given in the appendix of Ref. using
dimensional regularization. The relevant O(M^) parts of the P klm for D — > 4 are

f io = m£(a Mh + 1;

35

iS u (0 = A A/H + 1 + 0(M H 2 ),

-^020 = ^M H !

4i(£) = + ^) (Am„ + |) + 0(M£ 2 ),

4 3 (0 = ^(AM H + y)+^(M H 2 ),

4 2 (0 = ^ (Am h + £) + 0(M£ 2 ) (A.l)

with

A Mh = A - log f -f J , A = — - - lE + log(4vr), (A.2)

and 7^ being Euler's constant. In the main part of this article we drop the index % and
the argument £ for all logarithmically divergent integrals, because these are independent
of Mf and «£ at O(Afg).

In Sect. P we expressed the renormalization constant 5M^ (6.4) in terms of the Ikim

and scalar two-point functions B (k 2 , Mi, M 2 ) defined in ( |6.5| ). The explicit expressions
for the relevant .Bo-functions can for instance be deduced from the general result presented
in Ref. |T7|], leading to

5 (M 2 , M H , M h ) = A Mh + 2 - - ? =,

£? (M 2 ,0,0) = A A/H +2 + i7r. (A.3)

B Proof of equation ( |8.37| )

In this appendix we prove relation ([3.371) , which has been used in order to simplify the

-D^V^-terms in £™ by using the EOMs.
First, we derive the identity

p(UAU ] ) = U{PA)U\ (B.l)

where P is the projection operator ( p. 10 ), A an arbitrary 2x2-matrix and U an SU(2)

matrix. Using the definition of P we find

P(UAlP) = ^TitrfaUAU*} = ^ntr^nUA}. (B.2)

Owing to tr {[/VjC/j = tr {rj} = 0, the hermitian 2x2-matrix Wt{U is a linear combina-
tion of Pauli matrices, i.e. it can be written as

U^TiU = with X tj = i tr {rjU^nU} . (B.3)

36

This implies

UTjrf = TtXij. (B.4)

With (PD , (|BT3D , O and (ETlOD we find

P (c/AC/t) = -r^ tr {r,A} = 1 -Ut^ tr {t,-A} = U{PA)U\ (B.5)

2 . v 2
which proves (|B.1|) . With (|B.1|) one can easily derive (|8.37p :

tr{(PA[/)(PP[/)} = tr{f/(PAf/)f/ t f/(P J Bf/)f/ t } = tr {(PUA)(PUB)} . (B.6)

References

[1] S. Dittmaier and C. Grosse-Knetter, BI-TP 95/01, |hep-ph/9501285| , to appear in
Phys. Rev. D

[2] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. (NY) 158 (1984) 142;
A. Nyffeler and A. Schenk, Ann. Phys. (NY) 241 (1995) 301

[3] I.J.R. Aitchison and CM. Fraser, Phys. Lett. B146 (1984) 63; Phys. Rev. D31 (1985)
2605;

CM. Fraser, Z. Phys. C28 (1985) 101;

J.A. Zuk, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 2653; D33 (1986) 3645;

O. Cheyette, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 2394;

M.K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B268 (1986) 669;

L.-H. Chan, Phys. Rev. D36 (1987) 3755;

R.D. Ball, Phys. Rep. 182 (1989) 1;

M. Bilenky and A. Santamaria, Nucl. Phys. B420 (1994) 47
[4] L.-H. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1222 [Err. 56 (1986) 404]; 57 (1986) 1199
[5] O. Cheyette, Nucl. Phys. B297 (1988) 183

[6] M.J. Herrero and E. Ruiz Morales, Nucl. Phys. B418 (1994) 431; B437 (1995) 319

[7] B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1195; Dynamical Theory of groups and Fields
(Gordon and Breach, New York, 1965); in Quantum Gravity 2, ed. C.J. Isham, et. al.
(Oxford University Press, New York, 1981), p. 449;

G. 't Hooft, Acta Universitatis Wratislavensis 368 (1976) 345;

H. Kluberg-Stern and J. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D12 (1975) 482 and 3159;
D.G. Bouleware, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 389;

C.F. Hart, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 1993

[8] L.F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185 (1981) 189; Acta Phys. Polon. B13 (1982) 33;
L.F. Abbott, M.T. Grisaru and R.K. Schaefer, Nucl. Phys. B229 (1983) 372

[9] M.B. Einhorn and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 2758

37

[10] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and G. Weiglein, Phys. Lett. B333 (1994) 420; Nucl. Phys.
B (Proc. Suppl.) 37B (1994) 87

[11] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and G. Weiglein, Nucl. Phys. B440 (1995) 95.

[12] E.C.G. Stueckelberg, Helv. Phys. Acta 11 (1938) 299; 30 (1956) 209;
T. Kunimasa and T. Goto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 37 (1967) 425

[13] B.W. Lee and J. Zinn- Justin, Phys. Rev. D5 (1972) 3155

[14] F. Jegerlehner and J. Fleischer, Acta Phys. Polon. B17 (1986) 709

[15] C. Grosse-Knetter and R. Kogerler, Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 2865

[16] D. Espriu and J. Matias, Phys. Lett. B341 (1995) 332

[17] A. Denner, Fortschr. Phys. 41 (1993) 307

[18] T. Appelquist and C. Bernard, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 200

[19] A.C. Longhitano, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 118

[20] D. Barua and S.N. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 413;
H.D. Politzer, Nucl. Phys. B172 (1980) 349;
H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B361 (1991) 339;
C. Arzt, Phys. Lett. B342 (1995) 189;
C. Grosse-Knetter, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 1988 and 6709

[21] T. Appelquist, M.J. Bowick, E. Cohler and A.I. Hauser, Phys. Rev. D31 (1985) 1676

[22] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and R. Schuster, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 4738

[23] M.J.G. Veltman and F.J. Yndurain, Nucl. Phys. B325 (1989) 1

[24] S. Dawson and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 2880

[25] W. Beenakker, A. Denner, W. Hollik, R. Mertig, T. Sack and D. Wackeroth, Nucl.
Phys. B411 (1994) 343

[26] E. Malkawi and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 4462

[27] A. Denner and T. Sack, Nucl. Phys. B358 (1991) 46;

G. Eilam, R.R. Mendel, R. Migneron and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 3105

[28] B.A. Irwin, B. Margolis and H.D. Trottier, Phys. Lett. B256 (1991) 533

38